Law of Torts and Consumer Protection

Case Note

Courvoisier v. Raymond, 47 P. 284 (Colo. 1896)

Facts

Defendant Auguste Courvoisier was sleeping in his bed on the second floor of a building in

South Denver, Colorado. He owned a jewelry store on the first floor of the same building.

The incident occurred at a time when riots were happening in the area he lived in. Shortly

after midnight, Courvoisier was awakened by loud pounding on his door by some men. When

he asked them what they wanted, they insisted on being allowed inside. On refusing to

comply, he was subjected to profane and abusive phrases. They went on to break some signs

on the front of the building and entered using another opening. The intruders then began to

disturb Courvoisier’s sister by knocking on the door of the room in which she was sleeping.

Courvoisier loaded his revolver and fired a warning shot to frighten the uninvited guests

away. Unfortunately, instead of retreating, the intruders started throwing stones and

bricksbats at Courvoisier. He then fired two more shots, which attracted the attention of

plaintiff Edwin S. Raymond, a police officer who was at the tramway depot nearby.

Raymond, along with two deputies made their way toward Courvoisier and arrested the

intruders, who were rioters. Raymond then rushed to Courvoisier while calling out that he

was a police officer, and that Courvoisier should stop shooting. It was a dark night, but the

street was well lit. When Raymond put his hand in his pocket, Courvoisier took aim and

fired, causing injury to Raymond. At the trial, Courvoisier claimed that he thought that the

man in front of him was a robber, and that he had known of a robbery at Mr. Wilson’s store,
which was next to Courvoisier’s store. The defendant claimed that his eyesight was greatly

impaired and that he hadn’t heard Mr. Raymond or anyone else say anything that would have

led him to believe the plaintiff was an officer. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff

was approaching him in a threatening manner and the circumstances led him to believe that

there was an imminent threat to his life. However, the plaintiff claims that the defendant,

knowing that the man in front of him was a police officer, recklessly fired his gun. The trial

court passed a judgement in favor of Plaintiff, Raymond and this judgement was reversed by

The Colorado Supreme Court.

Issue

1. Were the fears of the defendant reasonable and justified?

2. Was the plaintiff was assaulting the defendant right before the plaintiff was shot?

3. Were the means made use of by the defendant (shooting Raymond) reasonable and

justified?

4. Was the instruction given by the district court to the jury erroneous?

Rule of Law

1. Self-Defense: The act of self-defense is lawful and justified when someone has a

reasonable belief that it necessary to defend themselves against the use or threatened

use of unlawful physical force. The defendant must prove to the court that he acted

honestly in using force, but his fears were reasonable under the circumstances, and as

to the reasonableness of the means made us of. The actor is not justified in the act of

self-defense if he was the initial aggressor. The defendant can only respond with the
 amount of force required to repeal the attack. The defendant who is being attacked

with a deadly force can retaliate with a deadly force.

2. Assault: Assault is said to have been committed when the defendant’s actions cause

the plaintiff to reasonably apprehend an infliction of battery. Therefore, no physical

injury is required for assault to occur.

Analysis

The first issue that was dealt with in this case was that of the reasonability of the fears of the

defendant. At the time of the incident, the defendant was already in a hostile situation and had

been subjected to stones and brickbats being thrown at him. This, along with the repeated

demanding of admission of the parties inside the room and the use of abusive epithets

directed towards the defendant upon his refusal to accept their requests – establishes the

hostile intentions of these parties in the mind of the defendant. It can be said that he had

knowledge of the potential threat to his life posed by the parties. This leads us to the analysis

of the second issue, that is, of whether or not the plaintiff was assaulting the defendant right

before the plaintiff was shot. Since it has been established that Courvoisier knew his life was

in danger, and the facts of the case say that Courvoisier’s vision was greatly impaired, and

that he hadn’t heard Raymond declare that he was an officer, this incident can be seen as an

assault committed by the plaintiff. Furthermore, Courvoisier adds, “I saw a man come away

from the bunch of men and come up towards me, and as I looked around, I saw this man put

his hand to his hip pocket.” When the man standing in front of the defendant, who was

probably in a distressed state of mind – reached into his pocket, it could have been reasonably

assumed by Courvoisier that he was pulling out a gun to shoot him. This is an assumption

that arises not just from the immediate stimulus provided by the plaintiff, but rather from the
broader circumstances of the situation and the series of events that preceded the incident. A

man who is assaulted under circumstances that led him to believe that the assault was

intended to take his life, or inflict extreme bodily harm, will be justified, if he kills or

attempts to kill his assailant.1 Therefore, there was an apprehension of imminent harm in the

mind of the defendant, and it can be said that the plaintiff had assaulted the defendant.

Another issue that is to be discussed is whether the extent of the force used by the defendant

was justified. Since the defendant was aware of the risk of being killed or robbed in this

altercation, he used his gun to fire a few shots in an attempt to scare the robbers away. Due to

this, he may have foreseen that the offending parties may brandish their own lethal weapons

at some point in this altercation. When the officer, who was perceived by the defendant as

another rioter/robber – reached into his pocket, the defendant would have thought this to be

an initiation of a fatal attack and would have assumed that he was going to be held at

gunpoint. Hence, in order to repel this deadly force, he used his own deadly force in an act of

self-defense, which was in no way excessive.

The case at hand has been ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the District Court of Arapahoe

County (Colorado) that held him liable for tortious assault on plaintiff police officer. This has

had happened partly due to an erroneous instruction given by the court to the jury. The

instruction is as follows: “The court instructs you that if you believe from the evidence that,

at the time the defendant shot the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not assaulting the defendant, then

your verdict should be for the plaintiff.” This instruction completely disregards the

consideration of the justification provided by the defendant. This instruction given to the jury

does not consider the overall circumstance surrounding the defendant. The defendant’s

situation at the time of the shooting were such that any reasonable man would apprehend that

his life in danger or that he was in danger of being subjected to severe bodily injury at the
1
William Morris v. Delos Platt and Another [1865] The American Law Register (1852-
1891), Vol. 13, No. 9, New Series Volume 4, P. 523
hands of the plaintiff. He swears that his house was invaded shortly after midnight by two

men, who he supposed to be burglars. On ejecting them, they were joined by more men, who

assaulted the defendant with stones and other missiles. When the defendant fired his gun into

the air to make them go away, a man emerged from the direction of the crowd and

approached the defendant. The defendant supposed that this was one of the rioters and did not

know that he had injured a police officer until after the shooting. He also claims that his

eyesight was greatly impaired and he hadn’t heard the plaintiff declare himself to be a police

officer. Another point of justification of his apprehensions was that he had known that the

store next door to his (Mr. Wilson’s) had been robbed few weeks before the incident. When

the instructions provided to the jury fail to convey all the necessary elements of the facts to

be analysed, the judgement is said to have taken place on erroneous grounds, and the

defendant may appeal to a higher court. 2 There is a possibility of the ruling being the

opposite, i.e., in favor of the defendant, had the jury been provided with this evidence under a

proper charge.

Conclusion

To conclude, the verdict may not have been different had the jury been properly instructed,

but there was a possibility of the verdict being different, and hence, the appellate court was

correct in reversing the judgement.

Bibliography

- William Morris v. Delos Platt and Another [1865] The American Law Register
(1852-1891), Vol. 13, No. 9, New Series Volume 4, P. 523

2
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544, U.S. 696 [2005]
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544, U.S. 696 [2005]